If they are knowingly allowing people to libel others, aren't they somewhat responsible? I think it should be fairly simple to sue them yourselves to make them take down the info. Might cost $100, but they wouldn't get the money, and you could probably sue them for legal expenses too. Once they are made aware that they have been aiding libel, shouldn't they have to remove the record in some time frame?

If they are knowingly allowing people to libel others, aren't they somewhat responsible? I think it should be fairly simple to sue them yourselves to make them take down the info. Might cost $100, but they wouldn't get the money, and you could probably sue them for legal expenses too. Once they are made aware that they have been aiding libel, shouldn't they have to remove the record in some time frame?

My guess is that it is cheaper to pay their removal fee than it is to sue them and go through the whole slow legal process.

That's the rub, it appears to be a straightforward extortion scam run by idiots who don't realize they're about to get sued into oblivion. Could anybody be that brazenly stupid? I'm wondering if this isn't some sort of PR stunt or something, because the extortion angle is too farking obvious...

Has anybody been following the posts on their Facebook page? At least half the names seem contrived and Gigi Holiday bot keeps posting the same exact statement. Philthy Phil keeps directing people to the same three websites, over and over again, where you can remove your name ostensibly for free.

I also saw one person accuse them of putting their kid's cell phone number on the site. If that's true and not part of the contrived BS, they're getting into criminal-liability territory as well. This is getting interesting. I still wonder if this is a straightforward extortion site because it's too farking obvious...

Resin33:Searched for my ex-wife and she wasn't listed. This site is not legit.

That because she been too busy with me and your current wife to get the word out.

The article has it right. Section 230 shields a publisher of online content, like Fark, from most civil claims based on the speech of third parties ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.") Copyright claims go a different route with the notice and takedown procedure. If the speaker is working for the company posting false slut-shaming claims, Section 230 would not protect them even from a civil claim.

If they are knowingly allowing people to libel others, aren't they somewhat responsible? I think it should be fairly simple to sue them yourselves to make them take down the info. Might cost $100, but they wouldn't get the money, and you could probably sue them for legal expenses too. Once they are made aware that they have been aiding libel, shouldn't they have to remove the record in some time frame?

My guess is that it is cheaper to pay their removal fee than it is to sue them and go through the whole slow legal process.

I'm taking the guy who totaled my car to small claims court for $3k (to pay off the replacement vehicle mind you, not a payday)

$20 filing fee$35 process server feeMaybe another $30 in gas and misc. expenses since we all live in the boonies.

Totally. Worth. It. - assuming he pays. Even if he doesn't, it'll be on public record, and I already covered the costs by selling the stereo out of the old car. I also testified against him when he tried to weasel out of the traffic ticket. Assuming you've got the spare time to deal with it, I say go for the jugular.

4tehsnowflakes:Resin33: Searched for my ex-wife and she wasn't listed. This site is not legit.

That because she been too busy with me and your current wife to get the word out.

The article has it right. Section 230 shields a publisher of online content, like Fark, from most civil claims based on the speech of third parties ("No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.") Copyright claims go a different route with the notice and takedown procedure. If the speaker is working for the company posting false slut-shaming claims, Section 230 would not protect them even from a civil claim.

If you check out the Facebook page, at least half and probably nearly all of the posts--including posts of people claiming to be victimized--sound like they're contrived, and probably by the same person. Some, like Philthy Phil and Gigi Holiday keep posting the exact same post over and over again. The others, including many of the ones claiming to be victimized, sound fake. It sounds to me like the same person/people running the website are posting the claims under false identities. I'll bet this ends up in court pretty soon...

That's the rub, it appears to be a straightforward extortion scam run by idiots who don't realize they're about to get sued into oblivion. Could anybody be that brazenly stupid? I'm wondering if this isn't some sort of PR stunt or something, because the extortion angle is too farking obvious...

Sued? That assumes they can even be found, and found in a country willing to even do anything about it. Even if their registrar and/or host are within reach so you can shut the site down, if you can't find the assholes themselves, what's to stop them from hopping to another address and/or host?

Isildur:Sued? That assumes they can even be found, and found in a country willing to even do anything about it. Even if their registrar and/or host are within reach so you can shut the site down, if you can't find the assholes themselves, what's to stop them from hopping to another address and/or host?

I'm too afraid of getting a virus (even with a slooooow dial-up) to actually visit their website, but I'm guessing they have some sort of way of sending the $99 fee to them. Don't they have to put some sort of bank account number to receive the money? I got an international money wire a couple of months ago, and I had to disclose my account number, routing number, and a SMART (?) code to get it. Subpoena the bank (is that the procedure?) to get them to disclose the person holding the bank account. If kids are getting listed and they're getting stalked by perverts, then I'd guess this would be a criminal-liability thing and the courts could easily force the bank to disclose the account holder.

I still think this might be more than just simple extortion. My conspiracy-nut side wonders if this isn't some sort of CIA thing to get all sorts of legislation to carefully monitor what third parties post on social media sites. Otherwise, if people can commit all sorts of libel on third-party websites (i.e. accusing somebody falsely of murder on Facebook) without fear of being sued, imagine what a colossal can of worms this thing can open up.

I've always been fascinated by scam artists on the Internet. When I got my first e-mail from the Nigerian Minister of Finance back in the 90s, I saw through it in about 0.002 seconds only because I was probably stoned at the time. The various phishing e-mails I've gotten since then--with their crummy machine-translated Engrish--were so obviously stupid that I couldn't imagine many people falling for them.

The scams are getting more sophisticated, though. I heard of one going around where certain porn sites in Europe were automatically uploading viruses to victims' computers. The viruses would lock up the operating system and demand, say, 100 Euros to reveal a password that would unlock the computer. Of course, if you wire the money to the crooks, you never get the password. What I'm wondering is how victims wire money to the crooks' bank accounts without the crooks' identity being known...

Sounds just like the John sheets on the police blotter. "So-and-so arrested for soliciting a prostitute. Here's his photo, and full name. Note that, if he is found not guilty, we will not print a retraction. Suck, So-and-so."

Could a Farker who knows banking far better than I do explain how wire transfers work? Seems like this and other scams like the Nigerian 419 work because apparently it's possible to wire somebody money without them being traced. Either that, or the trace procedure is so slow--perhaps several weeks--that the crooks can rake in a lot of money and move on before getting caught.

If that Section 230 stuff is real and not made up, it presumably means that John Q. Anonymous can go onto any third-party website and make all sorts of false accusations against, say, his ex-wife without the third party being held liable. Suppose some evil genius made a website called "Punish this Asshole dot com" or something like that. People can go on, perhaps without even registering, and make accusations that neighbors, co-workers, etc. are scum who deserve to be punished. There would be the tacit suggestion that crazy vigilantes out there might do society a favor by dealing extra-judicial punishment--legal or otherwise--upon the 'evil' people listed on Punish-this-Asshole-Dot-Com. There would also be the option, for a mere $1000, to have a 'case review' that, if you're determined to be not guilty of being an asshole, would have your name removed. Some people might be so scared shiatless of having vigilantes snipe at them that they would pay the thousand bucks. This could set a very, very, very farking dangerous precedent that could wreak havoc with the Internet...

In theory, a person seeking to make it difficult to trace the proceeds of a criminal enterprise might

Step 1: Set up corporations in various countries with strong financial privacy and weak cooperation with the authorities in the country you are hiding from; use complex interlocking ownership structure. Each has a local bank account governed by that country's laws.

Step 2: Reroute incoming transfers among the accounts, preferably in varying amounts, a bunch of times.

4tehsnowflakes:Psycat: Could a Farker explain how wire transfers work?

In theory, a person seeking to make it difficult to trace the proceeds of a criminal enterprise might

Step 1: Set up corporations in various countries with strong financial privacy and weak cooperation with the authorities in the country you are hiding from; use complex interlocking ownership structure. Each has a local bank account governed by that country's laws.

Step 2: Reroute incoming transfers among the accounts, preferably in varying amounts, a bunch of times.

Disclaimer: foregoing concise guide to money-laundering not intended to aid in the commission of any crime.

Lemme see if I got this right. Sucker/victim transfers money to Account A, held by tight-lipped Swiss, who then it's instantly transferred to Account B, which is run by corrupt Yemenis who look the other way for a little baksheesh, from whence it's transferred to Account C in Lagos? So, basically any sort of wire-transfer fraud ultimately works because some governments basically don't give a shiat where the money comes from? If that's so, what a screwed up system...

Psycat:I still think this might be more than just simple extortion. My conspiracy-nut side wonders if this isn't some sort of CIA thing to get all sorts of legislation to carefully monitor what third parties post on social media sites. Otherwise, if people can commit all sorts of libel on third-party websites (i.e. accusing somebody falsely of murder on Facebook) without fear of being sued, imagine what a colossal can of worms this thing can open up.

I wondered the same thing. There were a lot of internet censorship/monitoring bills that were shelved in the past couple years once the public got wind of them and spoke out. This seems like an attempt at swaying public opinion in the direction of censorship - find/create something so heinous in an "it could happen to me" way that people will freak out and demand tighter regulations.

apoptotic:Psycat: I still think this might be more than just simple extortion. My conspiracy-nut side wonders if this isn't some sort of CIA thing to get all sorts of legislation to carefully monitor what third parties post on social media sites. Otherwise, if people can commit all sorts of libel on third-party websites (i.e. accusing somebody falsely of murder on Facebook) without fear of being sued, imagine what a colossal can of worms this thing can open up.

I wondered the same thing. There were a lot of internet censorship/monitoring bills that were shelved in the past couple years once the public got wind of them and spoke out. This seems like an attempt at swaying public opinion in the direction of censorship - find/create something so heinous in an "it could happen to me" way that people will freak out and demand tighter regulations.

Yeah, I kinda got a false-flag vibe about this one. However, if this is a straight-up attempt at extortion and it's profitable, I could see crap like this sprouting up all over the Internet...

Psycat:apoptotic: Psycat: I still think this might be more than just simple extortion. My conspiracy-nut side wonders if this isn't some sort of CIA thing to get all sorts of legislation to carefully monitor what third parties post on social media sites. Otherwise, if people can commit all sorts of libel on third-party websites (i.e. accusing somebody falsely of murder on Facebook) without fear of being sued, imagine what a colossal can of worms this thing can open up.

I wondered the same thing. There were a lot of internet censorship/monitoring bills that were shelved in the past couple years once the public got wind of them and spoke out. This seems like an attempt at swaying public opinion in the direction of censorship - find/create something so heinous in an "it could happen to me" way that people will freak out and demand tighter regulations.

Yeah, I kinda got a false-flag vibe about this one. However, if this is a straight-up attempt at extortion and it's profitable, I could see crap like this sprouting up all over the Internet...

Already has in various forms.

Pop up window that says it found a virus? "Get it removed for 50$"Phishing for everything from credit card #'s to xbox accounts.Many porn sites are almost scams - never updated, auto-renewal.Wealthy Nigerian Princes [Mini CSB, I once received a "check" in the mail for 38,000 out of the blue, from some prince]Work at home job offers, on top of the pyramid scheme, are other dubious schemes, asking for money JFP style for a "listing", or more phishing.

This thing, from reading the fark comments, has a couple elements built into it.1. Pay to get removed. (a step above fishing by actually requesting money)2. Free removal Here - phishing for info.(which can then be used for nefarious means or sold to others)

Of course it's a scam, both are, really. That's what I don't get about a lot of the fark posts "I dunno....it looks fake"Just because we see that doesn't mean thousands of other people won't fall for it and fork over money or information, or both.

ripffoffreport.com does this with businesses. anyone can post an anonymous "complaint" and it hurts small businesses immensely. you can pay their $2,000 "arbitration" fee to have a "third party" arbitrator determine whether or not "false" complaints were filed against you which may have the "false" sections redacted. bear in mind that there are more expensive options for complaint removal and "corporate advocacy" (as they call their protection program).

sadly, the courts wont do jack shiat to these scum bags while they operate with impunity. it's a legal protection racket.